ncm@zembu.com (Nathan Myers) writes:
> Certainly there are machines and kernels that count time more precisely
> (isn't PG ported to QNX?). We do users of such kernels no favors by
> pretending they only count clock ticks. Furthermore, a 1ms clock
> tick is pretty common, e.g. on Alpha boxes.
Okay, I didn't know there were any popular systems that did that.
> This argues for yielding the minimum discernable amount of time (1us)
> and then backing off to a less-minimal time (1ms).
Fair enough. As you say, it's the same result on machines with coarse
time resolution, and it should help on smarter boxes. The main thing
is that I want to change the zero entries in s_spincycle, which
clearly aren't doing what the author intended.
regards, tom lane
